It will be with bated breath that Filipino officials and diplomats will be monitoring, in real time on Wednesday, June 3, the expected vote before the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA) that will decide if the Philippines secures a non-permanent seat in the preeminent UN Security Council for 2027 to 2028.
The June 3 vote, expected to take place at 10 pm Philippine time (10 am in New York, where the UN is based) is the culmination of more than three years of both public and private campaigning by most all corners of the executive — from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself, the two veteran diplomats who’ve served as foreign secretary under his term, and the various Philippine embassies and consulates tasked to court and convince their hosts abroad.
If all goes perfectly, Filipinos will know well before midnight on June 4 (Manila time) if the Philippines won its seat — that is, if Manila is able to secure at least two-thirds of the votes from members present and voting at the General Assembly.
Assuming all 193 UN member states show up on June 3, that means the Philippines should get at least 129 positive votes.
Election is conducted through a secret ballot. Sometimes, several rounds of voting — again, through secret ballot — are required for a member state to win the seat.
What is the UN SC?
The UN SC is considered the most powerful body in the UN, tasked with upholding “international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.” If it’s before the UNGA where statements are made by member nations, it’s the UN SC where those sentiments are then turned into action.
There’s a hierarchy of membership in the UN SC.
Five countries are permanent members (typically referred to as the “P5”) — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Permanent members have veto power, maning, any one of them can block a resolution even if it has the support of the rest of the council.
Non-permanent membership, meanwhile, is determined by voting before the UN GA. Then members are elected for two-year terms that are staggered. The 10 slots are broken down by region:
- Three for the African Group
- Two for Asia-Pacific Group (which the Philippines belongs to)
- Two for the Latin American and Caribbean Group
- One for the Eastern European Group
- Two for the Western European and Others Group
For the June 3, 2026 vote, the following seats are up for election:
- One for the African Group
- One for the Asia-Pacific Group
- One for the Latin American and Caribbean Group
- Two for the Western European and Others Group
The five countries that will win seats from the June 3 vote will serve a term that begins on January 1, 2027 and ends on December 31, 2028.
The Philippines is among many countries that have called for reform and better inclusivity in the UN SC, as well as “an empowered General Assembly that can hold the Council to account,” Marcos had said in 2022.
The Philippines has called for permanent African representation in the council and for limits to the use of veto power by permanent members.
The last time Manila held a non-permanent seat in the Security Council was from 2004 to 2005, or two decades ago. It previously held seats in 1957, 1963, and from 1980 to 1981.
Contest in the Asia-Pacific region
The race for the one Asia-Pacific seat up for grabs , rather unexpectedly, becomes quite tense. While Filipino diplomats openly express a level of confidence that the Philippines will get the seat — there’s always a caveat. After all, voting is through a secret ballot.
It means that even if Manila gets pledges from countries that its gets their Asia-Pacific vote, there’s no real way to check if those promises were indeed followed.
It’s especially tricky because the seat is being contested by Kyrgyzstan, a member state that’s never sat on the council.
Some UN observers have framed the Asia-Pacific contest as a showdown between regions — between Southeast Asia and Central Asia. There’s also fear that sympathy may go to Kyrgyzstan precisely because it’s never had a turn in the council.
In an Op-Ed for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Foreign Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro rejected this view, arguing that the Philippines has a “demonstrated record” in the UN.
“At a time when the rules-based international order is under unprecedented stress, the composition of the Council matters more than ever,” she said.
But what is it, exactly, that the Philippines has to offer?
Belief in rules, systems
For Manila, the desire for a seat in the UN SC has always been about having a say in global security issues and its faith in a multilateral system, despite its painfully obvious shortcomings and limitations.
Observers and critics are quick — and correct — to point out the failures of the mighty UN SC to actually enforce change for good, especially in light of numerous upheavals in the international order: Russia’s war on Ukraine, Israel’s attacks on Gaza, and the war waged by the United States and Israel on Iran. Those three cases involve either a P5 country or a nation with close ties to the P5, in the case of Israel.
Filipino observers often frame the UN SC seat as advantageous for the Philippines in the context of the Philippines’ dispute with the superpower China in the South China Sea. But Manila has not anchored its campaign on that.
The argument for Filipino officials and diplomats has always been of the Philippines being a country that stands by international law and rules-based order, even if, at sea, it’s been victim to what happens when those laws and rules are hard to enforce.
Timor-Leste President José Manuel Ramos-Horta, speaking before the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on May 30, called the UN SC “moribund, sclerotic, irrelevant.”
Manila, certainly, does not see it that way — even as it acknowledges the shortcomings of an international system that’s both stood up for it and has sometimes done little to materially affect it for the better.
“The Security Council’s chronic dysfunction—driven by great-power rivalry and the near-paralysis of the veto—has placed an increasing premium on elected members capable of building coalitions, bridging divides, and injecting procedural creativity into a stalled institution. The Philippines brings specific and credible assets to that role,” said Lazaro in her Op-Ed.
She added: “The Philippines has the track record, the relationships, and the diplomatic culture to play that role effectively. Manila has spent decades building the kind of trust—across regions, across development levels, across geopolitical blocs—that cannot be assembled quickly. The question before member states on June 3 is not which country deserves the seat, but which country can best use it. On that question, the Philippines’ case is strong.”
Will that be enough to prevent a possible upset in the vote? – Rappler.com
